Your window into the female mind. This is a subreddit dedicated to asking women questions about behavior, anatomy, habits or anything else that might baffle you. We welcome inquiries from everyone into the mysteries of the feminine.

Our mission is to provide a place where all women can comfortably and candidly present their viewpoints for community discussion in a non-judgmental space. To further that goal, we have a few...

About how you post it:

Post titles must be a descriptive, in depth question and searchable using keywords, or will be removed. DAE or questions that can be answered with just a yes/no will be removedNo personal attacks.No gendered slurs.No graceless posts or comments generalizing gender.No misogyny, misandry, transphobia, ageism, racism, general assholery, invalidation, or otherwise hateful or disrespectful commentary.No derailing. Talk via PM or start a new thread.No specifying majority demographics or excluding minority groups based on demographics.

About links:

Links MUST be accompanied by a summary.No posting personal pictures.No linking to specific threads in other forums.No linking to specific threads in /r/askwomen in other subreddits.No self-promotion.No using URL-shortening sites.

Violating any of these rules will result in moderator action.

Please be inclusive with question phrasing. Minority users are encouraged to answer the question as it applies to themselves. Downvote only to indicate that either a comment or post does not add to discussion; not to indicate disagreement. AskWomen benefits from honest answers with a variety of perspectives. On that note, saying, "Be honest," is rude and unnecessary. Familiarize yourself with Reddit 101. Use the report button on all comments and posts that violate the rules in the sidebar. Add flair! We have flair for men, women, transgender, and gender neutral. Be specific: ask a general question, get a general answer. Whether you are a woman or a man, please do not speak for all women. While men can still offer input, if your view conflicts with a woman's, we ask that you do not downvote or invalidate her response.

As a pretext, seeing the blatant misogyny on reddit has turned me into a feminist (before I was on reddit I thought sexist pigs were a myth that woman's studies profs created), however there seems to be one issue that we differ on.

In my mind, this is unfair to the father, who also had a role in creating the kid.

Being on the opposite side of most feminists I equate the mentality of "the woman has a uterus so they have the sole right to abort" to "the woman has a uterus so they have to stay home and take care of the kids".

But what if the father wants the unborn child, and the mother doesn't? Is it tough luck for the father?

I am not recommending an as-is denial of choice to the mother. What I am saying is that if there isn't a rape, and the father is competent enough the following should happen:

The mother is compensated as a surrogate as the child is no longer considered her own.

No child support is paid because the father has effectively adopted the child from the mother.

The mother is not given any custody of the child (as she wanted to abort in the first place, it is probably not an issue). If she wants custody, then she must repay the surrogate price.

Could this system work?

e1 - Just thinking out loud here, I have another can of worms to open: it is strange how a fetus is only considered a person when the woman desires to keep the child. If a man does anything to induce an abortion, that is an automatic second degree murder charge. (See the Scott Peterson trial) Shouldn't the charge be the same as causing a kidney to fail? The woman could still live without a kidney. It appears that personhood of a child is solely based on the decision of the female.

I think I need to reiterate myself to be clear, ideally abortions would take two signatures, whether it be that of the woman and a judge, a woman and an abuse councilor, a woman and her spouse.

It is very possible, and I do believe that men's rights and feminism can be apposites instead of opposites, that the goals of both sides can be worked on at the same time.

e2 - Remember not to downvote people you disagree with, if they contribute to the discussion, let them be heard. Otherwise you will end up with a homogenous group of like-minded people devoid of any actual conversation. In essence, you would risk becoming an intellectual circlejerk. If you have any questions, brush up on your reddiquette.

e3 - I was hoping that I had a win-win solution, however it looks bleak that there is a compromise, it is win-lose, and it turns out that the men are the losers.

If the mother agreed and legal proceedings accepted the arrangement, yes, in theory it could work.

But, no system should ever be designed to 'force' a woman to carry a child to term. Aside from the many moral issues, there are also physical health issues of the mother. I would also be concerned of the overall health of a child if the mother was 'forced' to carry and she made an unfortunate choice to not look out for the welfare of her unborn child by smoking, alcohol, drugs, unhealthy eating or anything else that may put the fetus at risk. No matter what the circumstances, if a woman was 'forced' to carry a child, she would most likely be at greater risk for mental health issues.

There is unfortunately never a good answer for this question. I feel terribly for any man in this situation but I will always side with the woman because of human rights and the physical risk of carrying, labor and delivery of a child.

If you support a man being able to claim rights to a fetus within a women's body, please answer these questions. And, factor in the many different circumstances surrounding each individual pregnancy as you read and answer them. You will quickly see there is a fundamental impossibility in creating and enforcing laws that would allow for this situation.

1) Who will oversee and guarantee the health and well being of the fetus during the 9 months? What would happen if the mother chose to smoke, do drugs, or drink while pregnant since there are few laws pertaining to this? Would they bare any responsibility to possible birth defects since this can be rarely and accurately blamed on any of the above risky behaviors?

2) Who will oversee and guarantee the health of the mother during the 9 months and also during recovery especially if she sustains long term illness/injury as a result of the pregnancy? Would a man have a rights to access private medical information? Would he be able to make decisions regarding her healthcare in areas that are not clear regarding the health of the fetus? What if she suffered damage/loss during labor or delivery? Would she be compensated? What is she was unable to have any future children because of this loss?

3) Who will provide financial support in regards to healthcare, expenses, missed work days? If the mother suffered health issues following her pregnancy, short or long term, who would be responsible for these costs? What if that responsible party was unable to continue to provide support due to illness, accident, job loss? Who would then become responsible?

4) The susceptibility of stress, emotional instability and trauma, hormonal imbalances, mental illness, post partem depression could be a risk of forced pregnancy. How would this be legally handled? Would the mother be able to choose to take certain medications to mitigate this that may harm the fetus?

5) If the mother suffers from a medical condition where terminating the pregnancy could be beneficial for her health, would she be able to decide? What if in an emergency situation arises and a choice has to be made regarding the health of the mother vs. the child? Who would oversee this especially in an emergency situation? What if the boundaries are not clear?

6) What if the death of the mother occurs as a result of this pregnancy? Legally, how should this be addressed?

7) Who would oversee all of these things? The court? A private agency? The government? Who would fund this system?

8) What if the father changed his mind and decided to relinquish his paternal rights after legal abortion was possible? Who would take ownership of the fetus and its rights?

9) Could the mother change her mind at any point during the pregnancy and retain maternal rights?

10) How could a man prove paternity of the fetus in time for legal abortion to be chosen by the mother? Does the man have a right to put the fetus at risk for prenatal paternity testing?

I ask with honesty, to any man out there in this situation, could this have been prevented? Do you hold any responsibility in creating this situation? Did you use protection? Did you trust your partner to use protection? Did you discuss this issue at length with your partner before becoming sexually active? Did you fully understand that the women has the legal right to decide to bring life into this world? Did you decide to terminate or carry? Can you prove this to a court? How can you prove that the fetus is yours? Could you financially cover ALL of the expenses related to pregnancy AND the risk of complications that could occur? What if you were unable to continue this throughout the pregnancy and who would then cover the costs? What if the woman died as a result? What if she suffered injury or illness as a result? What if she was placed on bed rest 4 months into the pregnancy because of complications? Could you pay for her care? What if she was laid off from her job because of the pregnancy? Could you cover her lost wages? Would you want this on your conscience? Is it her responsibility to suffer these risks? What if the woman choses to abuse her body and harmed the fetus? What if she wasn't taking the appropriate prenatal pills which leads to a high rate of birth defects? Could you ever trust a woman who was forced to care for a fetus as it should be? Would you want this baby knowing that it may suffer birth defects? What if it was later discovered that the baby, to no fault of the mother, had birth defects? Would you terminate? What if you died? Where would the child go? What if you decided you didn't want the child for any number of reasons? What would you tell the child about the situation? Would you feel good about your actions? What if the mother later chose to retain maternal rights? Would this change how you feel? What if she later decided after the birth of the child to fight to regain maternal rights?

Why, as a man, would you ever want to be in this situation? Accept, understand and take all preventative action necessary to ensure that unwanted pregnancies never occur. You know the reality of the current situation. Don't get someone pregnant.

And if you want to have children, which I think is awesome, find a willing partner, get a surrogate, adopt and take advantage of the many other options available. It will be a far more rewarding and safe situation for ALL involved.

In the event of an unplanned pregnancy? A result of a one night stand? Within a marriage? A long term relationship? Was this ever discussed and agreed upon to or not to have children? Who determines whether it was planned or not? Would we trust the mother's word or father's word? What was the 'cause' of the unplanned pregnancy? Was it birth control failure? Did the women willfully and intentionally try to get pregnant by skipping the pill? How could this be proven? Did the father wear a condom? Did it fail? Were any parties under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time? How would you handle paternity if the mother did not know the father's identity until after birth? Was the pregnancy a result of sexual assault of any kind? Could the mother claim this?

The problem at hand is that there is NO WAY to set legal precedence up regarding this scenario. There is no way to regulate, enforce or define a legal system regarding these circumstances. There are far too many gray areas to create laws surrounding these circumstances, much of which are subjective and could not be proven.

Men and women share equal rights and responsibilities when engaging in a sexual act.

If you are a man, and you choose to engage in sex with a woman, you accept that risk of pregnancy. You have every right to carefully choose your sexual partners and understand their belief systems. You have every right to abstain. You have every right to use and demand the use of birth control by all parties. You have a right to wear condoms. You have a right to get a vasectomy.

Woman have this same rights and responsibilities. Women have the RIGHT to carefully choose their partners and understand their partners beliefs systems. Woman have the right to abstain. Woman have every RIGHT to use and demand the use of birth control by all parties. Women have a RIGHT to demand their male partners wear condoms. Women have a right to use a more permanent form of birth control.

But the fact remains, that it is women who carry the child and the many risks that come from the decision of BOTH parties. And because of this, and because it is their bodies, it is the RIGHT of the woman to choose to bring life into this world.

I am not the original replier, but yes, I believe he does still pay. Why? Because at that point there is a child in the picture. The woman gets to decide what to do with her body. Once a child is there, nobody has the ability to walk away unless both sides agree. Period.

There was always a child in the picture. It just changed from a woman deciding for herself what she wants to do with the child of two people, too a man no longer able to exercise the same ability.

The woman gets to decide what to do with her body.

Under that guise a woman can choose to either possibly keep or kill a potential child for her or others benefit. There is nothing wrong with this, however unfortunate it is for a man to lose a child he would want. There is equal justification to force her to keep the child. Hopefully other options may present themselves in the future

However the man should also choose what to do with his body. And when you force a man to work under court order to pay for a child he did not want, you are effectively taking more potential time out of his life working for someone else for 18 years than he would if he held a child 9 months.

I honestly fail to see a difference between forced pregnancy and forced labour.

You seem to be assuming the effort involved in pregnancy/labor is equal between both sexes. It's not. I'm not saying it's fair a man should be forced to pay for a child that he doesn't want, but it's simply not equal to forcing a woman to carry a child she doesn't want. A woman's life or health may be at risk, I don't think you can quantify the sacrifices involved in pregnancy/labor.

And no one can force you to get a job to pay child support, from what I understand a factor in the calculation is non-custodial spouse's ability to support themselves. It's forced payment, not forced labor. And we all have to pay for shit we don't want to.

I agree. I understand that before a certain point a fetus doesn't jave individual rights but when did we jump to "that means me taking control is reasonable and you doing it is criminal". It seems like a twisting of the facts and I'm appalled.

I understand how it would be hurtful to a guy, so I do have empathy but I just can't see legislation forcing a woman to stay pregnant when the reason abortion is legal is a women's right to control her own body.

Is she compensated to reflect the (likely) permanent changes giving birth will have on her body? How do you compensate someone for that?

Also, this "compensation," would she be paid for every hour of discomfort? Pregnancy isn't 9 to 5, it's 24/7. It means she won't be able to sleep normally, her diet is disrupted, if she enjoys drinking she can't. Her relationships will certainly be disrupted, plenty of men have no desire to date a pregnant woman. What if she's a victim of postpartum depression after the birth?

What if she loses her job because she has to be away from it so long? The compensation would presumably stop after the birth, so she'll be up a creek without a paddle. Furthermore, what if she doesn't want to take maternity leave? Maybe she loves her job, and she doesn't want to be away from it for 3 months.

These things would of course all be worth it if you wanted a baby, but if you don't want it and it's no longer yours, it's an awful lot.

Just a quick added note - for my WANTED pregnancy I ended up having to spend 2 months on bed rest and from month 5 to the end I had 2 - 3 appointments per week for fetal monitoring. Not many employers are very sympathetic with that situation in the United States.

No. If you give the man the option to stop an abortion (or pregnancy) you are giving him more decision power over the woman's body than the woman herself has.

It's always unfortunate when people don't agree on what to do in case of a pregnancy, but you can't ever be fair. Two people means two opinions, where one has to win in the end. Of course that's the woman when she's the one physically going through it (regardless of whether it's abortion, pregnancy or "fetal transplant").

You can't give both opinion equal weight as no goal will get reached, and if you give the man's opinion more weight then, as I said, you've effectively given him the right to control the woman's body.

Giving the woman's opinion weight means giving the woman control of her own body.

If the woman is willing then that's great for them, but I'm not going to support someone forcing a woman through a procedure she doesn't want to be a part of, whether that is abortion, birth or some form of fetal transplant. In the end we're still talking about forcing a woman through some sort of procedure because someone else wants her to.

I'm in the same boat as PuppyFrost, but I understand your concern. It isn't really fair, but there is no way to make a situation like that fair. The unfortunate truth is that pregnancy affects a woman's body, and she should be allowed to maintain ultimate control over her body.

"why doesn't a man have control over his child?" because it's not possible to have that without also having control over the woman's body.
Women have as much right to control their own bodies as men have, and due to how fetuses are made and grown, this includes control over the fetus as it's literally inside of her body and using said body.

An unborn child is not comparable with a born child. Fetus' don't need diapers,food,clothes, and other things that are a financial burden. A fetus doesn't need someone to parent it and create a healthy environment for it and spend lots of time taking care of it. A fetus and a child are not the same, and parental responsibility of either should not be treated equally.

That's an intellectually lazy oversimplification. The man's debt is only monetary and for 18 years (and isn't even sexist! Women pay child support if they forfeit the child to their male partner) whereas the woman risks the integrity of her body (suppressed immune system, stretching, muscle and tissue damage) or even death, and the effects of ONE pregnancy last a life time, not to mention the social stigma, the extreme cost to your life for those 9 months, the crazy hormones and potential for postpartum depression which may follow... It's really lazy for you to make this argument. :/ There was another topic which came up recently here discussing the same thing. ctrl+f my posts for a longer discussion.

I hate this, I hate that men try to find some form of equality on this and their way of trying to find equality is to utterly fuck the other party. There is no way around this, there is no way to walk away, get. The. Fuck. Over. It. There is no way to make it equal. There is no way to make it fair. If you're going to have sex, you play with this risk, have sex with someone who has the same ideals as you, being sex positive doesn't mean you get to walk away from anything bad happening.

But the women does, she gets to walk away from anything bad happening. Now, realistically an abortion is in no way walking away from bad things happening, it's a mind fuck no matter what the circumstances.

But the fact is that women have the ability to do this up to a certain point in pregnancy. Men have no option after conception. I 100% agree with you in terms of forcing women not to have abortions, as I view pregnancy and giving birth on the same level as any medical procedure. However men should have the ability to say "I want nothing to do with this, if you make the choice to keep this baby (as you are legally entitled to make) then you should know I have nothing to do with it" At that point the womeon can make an infomred choice to have the child and take 100% responsibility, or not have the child.

Giving men a form of "financial" abortion does not take the choice away from women. She is still entitled to have the baby or not. Now this is not an equal situation, as a woman can still unilaterally decide to abort. So you are correct when you say there is no way to make it equal. But things can be more equal than they are now.

No, the woman has to face the choice of two physically traumatic events - one takes less than an hour and takes a few days to recover from, and the other takes nine months and has a greater physical toll. I'm amused that so many men want to wince and say, "Ow, my wallet!" but are completely ambivalent to the biological realities that result from pregnancy.

Neither birth nor abortion is easy. In the end, you don't have a say about which one the woman chooses, so be really damned careful about who you choose to have sex with and whether or not you want to have kids with them. Kids are, in essence, an STD - if you choose to screw around with women you wouldn't trust in your life otherwise, you're playing with fire because once your semen is inside of them, you have surrendered your control of what happens next.

The traumatic nature of both events is not something I dispute. I am thankful that my partner and I have never had to face that choice, and I 100% agree with what you say regarding that.

But the reasons that I am pro choice are 2 fold. One is that I do not agree with forcing a woman to undergo a medical procedure (pregnancy) that she does not want. The second is because I do not agree with bringing a child into a world where a child is not wanted.

To equate your STD example, women have a "cure" available to them, but it causes physical stress. Men have no cure, once infected there is nothing they can do. All I want to do is open the topic of trying to find a cure for men, I don't think it will be easy, but I want people to look at as something that should be just as important as the cure for women.

Logistically, you are calling for extraordinary measures (which are only popular in a tiny minority of the population) to make sure that both men and female have the exact same rights as each other, instead of equal rights.

Biology is not equal. Demanding the exact same rights, while ignoring biology, is inherently unequal.

Actually equal rights in this example are impossible. The women's choice will always be able to override the mans. I simple want the man to have more than zero rights.

The man's choice is made first, and the women's is made second because she has the ultimate authority on the topic. But she should not get the ability to choose for him. He can abdicate his responsibility, she can abort or not. If he does not abdicate, she can still abort or she can have the baby and abdicate, or she can have the baby and be joint parents. It's an unequal situation but at least no child is forced upon someone who does not want one.

I don't claim to have all the answers with regards to this topic I only think it is something that should be talked about with open minds. And the popularity of the "extraordinary measures" does not apply, the same could have been said about abortion at one time.

YES. As cis dudes we don't have fucking ovaries, man. That means we can't make babies. If you want a kid so bad you can always adopt, but you can't force some woman to perpetuate your genetic material just because you want her to. It's entirely up to her.

As for child-support I think a lot of those laws are pretty fucked up and sexist but that doesn't mean giving men authority over the ovaries of women they fuck is a good way to fix that problem.

Here is the big problem with this discussion: it conflates two separate (but tangentially related) issues.

1) bodily autonomy
2) a child's right to parental support

Until we can figure out a way to preserve or transplant fetuses or men can get pregnant, there will be no neat solution to this problem.

My opinion is that if you don't want to get someone pregnant, don't ejaculate during sex. Men can control whether or not they fertilize a woman by ceasing relations prior to orgasm. Women don't always orgasm during sex, so it isn't a stretch ask men not to orgasm during sex.

They do, it just has to be an agreement between the parents, and you can sign away all legal and financial responsibility (in Canada, anyway.)
And after that you have no rights over the child whatsoever.

Because it's not fair to the child. If he starts a pregnancy that goes to term, that is his child. Not fair to him maybe, but he had the choice to not have sex. Even if he did have a legal right, it is immoral to bring a child into the world and abandon him/her.

Because the way biology works, is that a man's contribution to pregnancy ends about 5 seconds after he ejaculates; while a woman's lasts another nine months and carries a whole host of potential complications that could last a lifetime. Greater burden of the responsibility equals greater burden of the choice.

I think we are way over-thinking this. Yes, the man co-created this baby. I'm sorry to say, but he did like .0000000000001 percent of the work that it takes to physically create a living human being. The only analogy I can really think of is if you owned a single stock in a huge company and expected to be able to make all the decisions for everyone working there.

Granted, this issue is really way more complex than that. But it's to help you understand what this argument sounds like to me:

"Hey, I came in you. I get complete control over your body for the next 9 months. K?"

edit: I'll also mention right here, as others have, that bringing a baby to term often requires going off of essential meds. In my case, this would include my mood stabilizers (which are actually an anti-seizure med... so I imagine for an epilectic this would be even more catastrophic). There is more at hand here than having cravings, swollen feet, and a really painful labor. Some women get diabetes, simply from being pregnant. And these are just things I know of from people in my own life.

I think it is an oversimplification of the issue. I understand how it seems unfair, but there is no way for the child to be born without potentially sacrificing the integrity of the woman's body, health, and life. This, in the end, is about controlling women. ABSOLUTELY NO ONE should have control over a woman's body but herself. There is no equivalent that a man experiences to gestation and birth.

Why would he get any control in order for the situation to be equitable? It may not even be his child- male parenthood is not as apparent or certain as female. Fatherhood is something that can only recently actually be a proven thing through testing. I think that that illustrates the fact that the benefit of having the pain-free and generally effortless role in the reproductive process (insemination) carries the downside of having less input once a woman is fertilized in terms of rights to the fetus' gestation. Once the child is born the parents can then decide what social responsibility to the child the man will have but it is unethical for a man to have an equal say in the actual gestation process as the impact for him is minimal while it is a body-changing, effort intense and potentially deadly undertaking of almost a year for a woman. In natural circumstances, neither parent would have any say in the gestation but modern technology has allowed us to "hack" pregnancy in ways that can benefit all parties. The unequal burden of pregnancy, however, immediately affords the bearer of the child more rights over her gestation than the male. It is only fair in this case- giving men an equal say in terms of this issue actually makes this unfair to a greater degree than if the woman has the final say. The biological process is just not equitable to begin with so there is no fair solution that gives a male an equal say in gestation-related decisions.

The reason why this is complicated is that a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant is being forced to be pregnant so the father of the child can "collect." Pregnancy is not a fun time and it can have long lasting if not permanent effects on the body. She doesn't want to be a surrogate, she wants to continue living her life as is. You're right, it is unfair to the man, but it's more unfair to woman. What is his plea, "I came inside of you by accident so now please endure 9 months of possible agony and perhaps lose the body you know and love forever?" No thanks. If she doesn't want the child, it is indeed tough luck for the father.

People underestimate how damaging and dangerous pregnancy can be, too, especially for people with health problems or high-risk pregnancies. My cousin with MS got pregnant and had to stop taking her MS meds. She had almost no symptoms of MS before, but by the time the baby was born, she was in a wheelchair and couldn't feel anything below her neck. It was her choice to keep the pregnancy, but it would be awful to be forced to go through a pregnancy like that.

It was an accidental pregnancy. She and her husband wanted a baby very badly and decided that they would adopt, but then when she found out she was pregnant, they couldn't bear to abort a child they wanted so badly. So they continued the pregnancy despite the health risks (and her doctors' strong recommendations against it). She can still move her arms and legs a bit, but it's tricky because she has no feeling. It's hard to hold things when you can't feel how hard you are gripping. At least the labor was easy - zero pain because she couldn't feel a thing. The damage is permanent, but her little girl is almost a year old now, healthy, and just a bundle of joy. She is very happy with her decision, and we're still holding out hope that they'll find a way to treat/reverse MS in her lifetime. She's young so hopefully she has a lot of years ahead of her.

That's so heartbreaking. And a very real example of how dangerous a pregnancy can be to a mother! It's not like having a kidney in for 9 months and then just popping it out. Growing another life inside of you isn't all sunshine and rainbows.

I know you think that's really witty and ironic but why should that affect their choice?

Life is not some kind of privilege that is automatically enjoyed and I have no duty to continue the cycle. You're not "giving back" if you breed.

I choose not to have kids because I know what it's like to be a kid. It sucked for me with ADHD and it hasn't magically got better as I've grown up.
For one I'm not sure I would be a good father and most importantly I wouldn't want to pass on my bad genetics.

I never said all kids are terrible. I don't hate them, my reasons for being child free are different as I explained. I wasn't speaking for the people at r/childfree.

I was responding to that line I quoted, which I have taken out of context a bit.

The "you were a kid once" line seems to be quite a common response for anyone who doesn't want kids. I don't think it's too hypocritical. People don't consciously make a choose to be born and go through childhood. It's a bit extreme for them to actively hate kids. I find them a bit annoying but certainly don't hate them.
Calling the hypocrite card doesn't invalidate the argument. Just because these people were once kids doesn't make kids any different per se.

To be honest, there is a huge undercurrent of anger I get from many of the child free posts - but so often it seems as though that anger is directed at the children themselves. Why?

One truth I've learned as a parent is that my kids had no say at all in the matter of their existence. They didn't ask to be here.

Honestly, if I had a do-over, I probably wouldn't have had children either, for the same reasons you said. But since there are no do-overs, I stick to the hope that my experience will make their lives less bumpy and confusing.

Yep, it's insane. I can understand the not wanting to have kids thing and they raise many valid points on that topic. But the child hating just puts me off completely. It seems a lot of people there expect that, since they've chosen not to have children, that they have the right to never be bothered by a child, ever. They also seem to blow the comments they get ("When are you having kids? Oh, you'll change your mind.") entirely out of proportion. You know what? People who have kids ALSO get those comments a lot, but they take the form of "When are you having another?" or "That's a lot of kids, you know what causes that?" or "All girls, eh, trying or a boy next?". People will be tactless dicks no matter what you decide to do, so stop dwelling on it!!

oh. well that sucks. shit....but maybe this will help: i always had a razor sharp mind, wit, memory. then somewhere around my mid 40's: BOOM! i'm an idiot who can barely remember what i had for dinner last night. i have to keep a to-do list of every single thing i need to keep track of or it won't get done. i swear i could be wounded and bleeding profusely and if i ran to the store to get first aid supplies i would forget what i went there for if i didn't have it written down .. (this is just barely exaggerating) and this seems to happen to most of my friends in their mid 40's....so what i'm saying is: it was gonna happen anyway, at least it won't be such a shock for you...

And then there's the belief that some part of the mom's brain comes out with the placenta.

The fact of the matter is, there is ALWAYS one segment or portion of my brain dedicated to my children. They may not be camping out in the forefront, or even necessarily occupying the way back yonder, but they are as much a part of me as I am sometimes. They're just there, always.

You just described me! haha. Last night I was making pumpkin bread and forgot to put sugar in it until I started to put it in the oven. As if that's not bad enough, I mixed the sugar in and then started to put it in the oven and realized I didn't add the oil. I felt like such an idiot! So yeah, my brain is also a little fried. ;-)

You should read more, an not just stories but about specific subjects as well. Pick up a little book on outdoor survival or a beginner's guide to computer science. It'll help your memory recall a bit. At 40 you've probably spent about 20 years out of school, and people should never stop learning.

Have you had your thyroid checked? Due to my own thyroid issues I've read a lot on this subject, and apparently it's common for TSH (thyroid stimulating hormones) to change drastically both during and after pregnancy. I've never been pregnant, but it is more common than people realize. Some women need thyroid medication only for a little bit while others will need it for life.

You may not have to live with that brain fog. "The Thyroid Solution" is an amazing book, you should check it out. He discusses pregnancies and thyroid issues quite a bit - more than any other book I've seen on the subject. I highly recommend it.

I actually responded to this in a thread last week about financial abortion. Essentially, I believe that in an ideal world the unwilling parent should not have to pay child support, but it's just as complicated as the situation laid out here.

It always feels like people oversimplicate the issue when these threads come up. Life is complicated and very messy, and anything involving pregnancy, abortion, adoption, childbirth, child-rearing, or child-support is never.........can never be black and white.

The problem with this is that it's very hard to prove that they were unwilling, and then you have to define at what point they count as unwilling - if the mother tells the father during pregnancy and he wants an abortion but she continues, it seems fair that he shouldn't pay child support. But what if she only tells him afterwards, and then he says "oh, I wish you had an abortion when you were pregnant" - is this him not wanting a baby or not wanting to pay child support? If there's a difference then mothers can just not tell the father of their baby until after the baby is born so that they get child support, and if there isn't a difference, fathers just need to say "yeah, should have had an abortion" as soon as they find out they're a father to avoid paying maintenance.

It's really complex and I agree that unwilling fathers shouldn't have to pay (in the UK there's actually regulations against this - part of the forms they have to fill out asks if the father is aware of the child), but at the minute the system is as un-manipulatable as possible I think - you can't really fake a child's fatherhood if they ask for a paternity test. Whereas you can fake your willingness to have a baby.

Let me see if I can create a context that can put OPs situation in perspective. A good friend of mine was in a relationship, and they had not been able to conceive. A trip to the doctors confirmed he has a slim-to-none chance of being a father. Several years of trying (and other things) had put its toll on the relationship, and they ended up breaking up.

As often happens, they hooked up some time after the break up and, to much surprise, she ended up pregnant. She admitted it could only be his, and I can think of no reason why she would claim that if it weren't the case. Now what? She insists on an abortion, he desperately wants a child of his own.

Obviously, she got her will, and my friend is devastated. He argues, with good reason, that if she had wanted a child, she'd probably be given custody and he would be paying considerable amounts. But with the roles reversed, he finds himself with no rights at all, and it does seem very unfair indeed.

Can you think of any other solution to the situation that wouldn't (unreasonably) compromise womens rights and still ensure my friend had gotten the chance to be a father?

No, I can't. That's a horrible situation and I'm very sorry for your friend and wish it had worked out for him. If I were the woman in this situation and I cared about the man even a little, I most likely would have gone through with the pregnancy. Since this woman was intent on getting an abortion, there was no way, given our current medical resources, that she could have kept the right to her own body while still allowing your friend the chance to be a father. I wish there was.

Nope. Abortion is not merely avoiding children but ultimately the right to bodily autonomy. The fetus is in the woman's body and in order for that to become a child, it requires months of physical and mental exhaustion. No one can (should) be forced to go through a pregnancy if they they don't want to.

But for your question, it's not a child. It would be an embryo or fetus, depending on the stage before she gets the abortion.

If a woman choses to all of those conditions then that's swell! If she wants to avoid being a mother but let someone be a father, then fantastic. But what you seem to be suggesting is that she is forced to give birth to resign to the would-be fathers wishes. That is something you cannot force a woman to do.

If there was a way to remove the foetus from the woman and have it grow it to term outside the womb, I might say yes. But as far as I know there isn't (yet). The woman would still be forced to spend nine months pregnant and give birth (or have a c-section, which carries it's own complications) both of which have a huge effect on the body, not the mention the difficulties it presents in day-to-day living.

It does seem unfair that the man has no say but it would be more unfair to the woman to make her relinquish control over her own body. Men and women's roles in pregnancy and childbirth are not equal and no amount of legislation can make them so.

I know this may be on a slight tangent but I truly do wonder how many perplexing moral arguments will become null and void with the onset of new technologies and medical techniques. Will we begin to argue not that a woman has the right to abortion but that a woman has the right to have to bear children at all. With pregnancy being dangerous and complications easy to arise would we argue that women shouldn't have to give birth but have children with these "artificial wombs" instead. I also wonder which demographics would take which sides. I'm sure these decisions will arise soon in the future with the rise in IVF treatments and the such.

You use the term "forced" as if someone has a gun to her goddamn head. If she wants to transfer the baby to an artificial womb, it's her choice. Otherwise she's getting an abortion. So whats the fucking difference.

I think there is no reason your suggestion shouldn't be an option that the involved parties have.

You cannot give men the power to force women to carry to term. Besides the moral implications (discussed plenty by other posters), it just plain wouldn't work. It would be destructive to women's mental health, you'd see an increase in suicides (conjecture). It would also increase illegal/unsafe abortions, women throwing themselves down stairs, or overdosing on medication to lose the child. It is just not feasible to force this upon women.

Unfortunately the law doesn't always care about that. It isn't uncommon for the state to require the mother to disclose who the father is when applying for government support and the state will go after the person for child support. Also mothers at a later date can change her mind and pursue support from unwilling fathers.

This is a touchy subject. And while I feel for the father who will want to this child and to care for it, it is the mother's decision. Her body is going to go through the changes from pregnancy. She has to carry it for 9 months and she will still have to deal with the fact that she has a child out there in the world after the fact.

The two sides will never agree - so I give the upper hand to the person who will be most affected by this - which is the mother. Even if it's only for 9 months - it is still HER body. Thus it is ultimately her choice.

Just to add to the other no's, the fact is that all the Father has donated is sperm. The rest of the makeup of the baby is drawn from the mother. The baby steals material from the mother. The baby shoots hormones in the mother to make her be able to carry it. It's an alien that is taking over her body!

So no, men do not put as much into the creation of a baby. She is the one who gets judged for having a child. She is the one ridiculed at first glance. This is a medical condition that takes over her life.

As a man, I understand that it's not my choice to make. I don't have to carry the baby to term. That's just how nature works. Once a woman is pregnant, the choice is out of my hands. If you don't want to deal with the fact that it's not in your control, well, be more careful to begin with.

(And the obviously flipside to this is that a man can choose to just walk away when he gets a woman pregnant. A woman has to deal with it, one way or another.)

In every 'just adopt out' argument I hear against abortion I feel that the physical and emotn cost to a woman to go through a pregnancy is completely disregarded. A woman goes through irreversible changes (younger women tend to 'bounce back' easier but still) to their bodies during pregnancy and the act of birth itself is a BIG DEAL. Whether the birth is vaginal or cecarian once you've had a child you can't go back to the way you were physically before you had that child. So yea the child is genetically half the father's and he may want kids, but for nine months there is a living human parasite within that woman and if she doesn't want it there. The idea of paying the woman to be a surrogate if she's amenable? Only if she is receiving above and beyond the cost of everything required for the nine months of pregnancy. Not just the cost of doctors visits, but all the tests they do, the food she needs to eat to maintain a healthy pregancy, all the clothes to wear cuz her stuff won't fit anymore (and may never again), hospital visit for the actual birth, and any post partum care she would require due to complications or post-partum depression. It means you're asking her to give up her life for you for nine months at least and risk her life so you can be a dad.
If you want to have kids that badly you'd force a woman to carry your child to term maybe you should look into adopting.

No, see other replies. But conversely, in the opposite situation where a man doesn't want children and the woman does he should have a right, which he doesn't currently have, analogous to adoption. Before or right at birth he should be able to give up his parental rights, regardless of the woman's decision.

The big issue is men not having reproductive choice, and women who have access to various forms of birth control having the ability to financialyl enslave men for 18 years. This is a right women currently have, via adoption, that men do not and real equal rights wont exist without giving men this right.

My approach to men's rights in that situation has been this, although I don't ever see it being adopted legally.

It is the woman's responsibility to tell the man that she is pregnant before the point at which it's no longer possible to abort.

It is the man's responsibility, then, to file paperwork absolving himself of all fatherly duties if he does not wish to be a parent or to have financial responsibility in this regard. He would then be responsible for the full cost of abortion services as per the costs of the nearest abortion provider. This is combined with a filing fee, and the courts hold the money for the woman.

If the woman wishes to not raise the child by herself or adopt, she can then claim that money and use it for abortion services. Both man and woman are absolved from parenting responsibility. If she does not wish to abort, she can claim that money, file acceptance of SOLE parental responsibility with the courts that also guarantees the man is not financially responsible at any point in the future for the child, and she can use the funds for pre-natal care. She can then keep or adopt out the child once it is born.

No system would ever be perfect, but it's my opinion that this is the most fair.

Yes, I would think she would. This, however, would have to be debated accordingly.

No, that part of current law would not be changed. A woman should not have to inform anyone else of a decision being made about her body.

I'm not sure what reasons would cause a person to be unable to contact the father, aside from the father being a one night stand and difficult/impossible to find. If he's actively avoiding her, or if he's given her a false name I imagine she could file it with the court as proof that she attempted contact, to allow herself the right to pursue support in the future. As for notifying someone who is not the father, he would need to demand paternity testing if he is in doubt.

Paternity testing. Unsure.

I think this situation is so rare that it truly does not need to be addressed right now, since this entire proposal is something most people dismiss as unrealistic (for various reasons). However, based on #1, it would be in her best interest to start proceedings and notifications immediately, as she would lose her right to any form of support if she dallies.

I am hoping that the process would be streamlined enough that paperwork would not take weeks, but days. If I recall correctly, that gives her two trimesters to figure it out, right?

Administration fees would be paid in part by the men who wish to opt out of parentage. The other part, I assume, would be paid by the women filing the claim/notification.

Treat it like a divorce notification. You get served by the court - another $30 fee in many jurisdictions that the woman would have to cover. When a Sheriff is tracking you down, there's a smaller percentage of men who will be able to successfully avoid notification.

I'd say no. For starter, the mother can't be a surrogate when he's the biological mother, that is unreasonable in itself.

And lots of other good and logical points could be made, but at the end of the day pregnancy is 9 months of health issues that could cause permanent damage to the woman, and even kill her. Then there's the biological point that our bodies are wired to bond with the creature growing inside us, and the mother's relationship with the unborn child she's been carrying around may change during the course of the pregnancy. What if she decided that she wants custody after the child is born? Even with legally binding deals, I can't see an outcome that wouldn't be messy and painful for all involved parties, including the child.

Actually... yes a biological mother can be a surrogate. There are two types of surrogacy, traditional and gestational. Gestational surrogates have IVF performed on them and are impregnated with an embryo. Traditional surrogates have IUI (intra uterine insemination, an injection of sperm) and is essentially acting as an egg donor and surrogate, carrying her biological child for another couple. Traditional surrogacy is well known to be cheaper by avoiding the cost of IVF and an egg donor (both very expensive). And less risk of multiples. (This isn't relevant to any part of your post but the part about a biological mother can't be a surrogate.)

Only if the fetus can be moved from the mother into the father to be carried to term.

No matter how much financial compensation there is, it won't make up for the physical trauma and danger of pregnancy and childbirth.

Pregnancy is difficult, it permanently alters a person's body, and it can be potentially life threatening. I have done it myself and it would have been horrifically traumatic for me if the child had not been wanted. Until it is born, the fetus is effectively a parasite. It leeches nutrients from your body, it's own growing body alters your bone structure and the arrangements of your organs. There are a number of debilitating and life threatening illnesses that can occur during pregnancy. Then there is birth itself. I had to have fifteen stitches due to vaginal tearing, and I got off pretty easy compared to a lot of people. I didn't need a c-section and I didn't have tearing so bad that I needed reconstructive surgery (this happened to my mother when she had me).

No. Men should not have a right to force women to go through with pregnancy, labor, and childbirth and any risks and complications that will arise because of that. Yes, in someways it is perhaps "unfair" but that's just a part of life. It's not all fair. Biology is what it is. Men can't be pregnant, they don't face those consequences. Women do and they have absolute power over their bodies and medical decisions.

Correct. Until medical science reaches a point where an embryo or fetus can be safely removed with no threat to the woman's life, the father has no rights to an unborn child. He can try to convince the woman to carry it, and if she's able to it'd probably be the best thing to do, but it's her body, and her life.

Pregnancy can cause a lot of short-term, long-term, life-threatening, and even life-ending conditions. Childbirth still has a maternal mortality rate. Just like you can't force someone, even a relative, to donate an organ or bone marrow to you, you can't force a woman to risk her life to carry your child, if she isn't willing to accept that risk.

I disagree here. I think in the case of a miscarriage or abortion, the man could argue for the rights to the fetus (say, if he wants to bury it or mourn it). But as long as the fetus is inside a woman, than the rights are primarily hers.

Yet they have tremendous responsibilities towards the fetus once it becomes a child regardless if they want it or not. Once a man gets a woman pregnant his ability to decide if he wants responsibility for the child is not in his hands.

This system can never work for as long as the mother does not want to carry the child to term. If her only issue is not the pregnancy and birth, but rather the rearing - sure.

Otherwise, the father needs to pick his mates a little more carefully, and determine before he has intercourse if the woman he may get pregnant is the type of person who would agree with his approach to fertility.

If she agrees to surrogacy then it'd work otherwise I think that she is putting her health and body at risk by allowing the fetus to thrive in her. Just because the father wants the baby doesn't mean she should have to endure pregnancy. It should be her choice to keep or abort then her choice to keep the baby or let the father adopt it.

No, It's the woman's body and mind in question when it comes to this. It still boils down to want she wants to happen to HER body.

I mean, good on the man who wants to take responsibility for the child even when the woman doesn't want it, but it's not his choice ultimately. It's hers. I think it's sad that there is no real way for the father to have a say without essentially taking control over what a woman can do with her body, but it is what it is.

It's not that I'm so worried about the responsibility of a child so much as I'm worried about 9 months of discomfort and mental hell. I think it's less of an issue about who's responsible when it comes to this as it is an issue about what this woman is having happen to her body.

With every fiber of my being, this terrifies me :( You should never ever ever force someone to carry a child to term that they do not want. Unconditionally. :( To some women who do not want a child, it is like having a parasite grow inside you which could potentially destroy the integrity of your body (suppressed immune system, stretching, muscle and tissue damage) or even kill you. Furthermore, her body is plagued by hormones which could eventually lead to an attachment to a child she already knows she cannot care for or post-partum depression. This is an incredibly fucked up thing to expect of a non-consenting woman. Removing control from a woman by this extreme scares me almost as much as rape.

There is no monetary compensation that makes this okay!

If the father sincerely wants a child, it is OBVIOUSLY unhealthy for him to expect that child to be born of a non-consenting (to pregnancy) woman. Given a woman who wants to have his child, it is relatively inexpensive biological investment for the man (baring, of course, fertility and health problems -- but again, these are not excuses to pressure a woman to carry to term a child).

If the woman does not want the child but consents to the gestation, then this is okay. BUT TO DEMAND IT OF HER IS INCREDIBLY FUCKED UP.

It would be nice if these choices could be equally made between men and women, but that's just not how biology works. These are exactly the differences that define the sexes. Pregnancy is 9 months long. It's a lot to ask of a woman. Physical and emotional effects during and after, the pain of childbirth, risk of complications, time spent missing work/ school, affects on her social life, being unable to keep the pregnancy a secret. I also think there is a big emotional difference between getting an abortion and having and then giving up a baby and speaking for myself, I think I would find the latter a lot more heartbreaking. You can't reverse this stuff by just throwing money at her. It would still be a huge, life-changing event. It's not like you can just go about your life as usual when you are pregnant just because you don't plan to keep the baby. If the man and woman both agree to this system, then by all means, go for it, but it would be unacceptable to force a woman to do this.

The situation you outlined also sounds like it is an accidental pregnancy. If neither of them wanted a kid in the first place, why does he suddenly want one so badly that he is willing force a woman to be pregnant with a child she doesn't want? If it's just that he's pro-life, then I really don't sympathize. He shouldn't go around having sex with pro-choice women if he doesn't want an abortion to take place. The situation also sounds incredibly rare.

Also, in the comments, people keep being like "yeah, well what about if fathers don't want a kid and are made to pay child support?" I don't think that issue negates the fact that a man can't force a woman to be pregnant. There is such a thing as signing away your rights. It just often isn't approved by the state because, at the point where the child is already born, they are most worried about the kid's welfare. You can't decide that child support is unfair and then say that men can sometimes force women to carry a baby to term, as if these somehow balance each other out and make things more fair.

This is one of those cases where life isn't fair, and there's no way that men and women will have equal choice in the matter. I cannot fathom a situation where a woman would hand over her baby to the father and walk away, never to see the child again. If she gives birth to it, there's a big likelihood she'll end up with parental responsibility by her own choice.

Men should NEVER EVER have the right to force a woman to carry a child she does not want. Pregnancy can be hugely traumatic, both physically and mentally, and nothing a man goes through can compare. And while I understand that these situations can be very disappointing for a man, that's life.

I'm going to say no. A lot of others here have rightly pointed out that it's the womans body, and she has agency over it. But I want to really pick this apart, because I feel its for a variety of reasons, and a great deal more complicated than just the man's or woman's rights.

It can endanger the woman's health significantly, mentally or otherwise. Even things like C-sections can be greatly harmful and risky - it is a surgery after all. Post-natal depression is really common, as is the baby being premature, or a miscarriage. All of these are stressful enough without the added dynamic of her NOT wanting to go through this process. Can you imagine the stress this situation would put on the mother? That would be dangerous to the child. Similarly - financial compensation is just one side - i feel like the damage to her career, to her image, to her body and to her psyche is more extensive than that.

It is REALLY common for both surrogates and adoptive parents to change their mind in those 9 months. Surrogate mothers entering this agreement normally would have (you'd hope) adequate knowledge about the process and legal contracts discussing the outcome of the child. Is it fair that the woman is just thrust into that situation with no knowledge, no protection and such an unsteady outcome? What happens if the man changes his mind and the woman still had the child? What happens if she went through the whole 9 months totally against her will only to find she wants custody?

What is the relationship between the parents? To be honest if someone was forcing me to have their child against my will and i could do nothing about it, i would hate them. There is no way that discussion could happen without me being incredibly emotional at the situation, and this emotion would most likely be focused on the man in this. I would hate the guy. I know he just wants to look after a child and be a father but it would feel like he was punishing me for his chance. This in mind, how would the mother and father communicate during those 9 months? Who would go to the appointments like ultrasounds?

What happens to the child? I am of the opinion that kids should be able to find out where they come from and their heritage. As it is not uncommon when the man leaves the relationship that the kid chooses to find the dad, what are the restrictions on this? Would the woman have the right to see her child, or give them presents or pass on history? Most importantly - as i stated its really common for both parent to change their minds in that 9 month span - WHAT HAPPENS TO THE CHILD IN THIS CASE? I ask this because children have been left without nationalities, or birth mothers (legally) etc and that is insanely significant for the child's life. What happens to it if they parents change their minds? Do they go into foster care? I just don't feel its right to subject the child to that based on a mistake.

What are the financial responsibilities of both parties? Who pays for the expenses of pregnancy? Surrogacy laws are complicated and commerical surrogacy is illegal here in Australia (here is a recent news report on it). Therefore australians pay a lump sum compensation to an indian woman for it. Others however move the surrogate into the house with them and cover ALL costs of the pregnancy.

What are the roles of others involved i.e. grandparents?

TL;DR: Surrogacy has it's own mind fields, including parents changing their mind. I feel this situation is more likely to hurt the mother and child, and hence it is unfair and should not happen.

What an interesting thread! Here's my two cents. No, and a fairly resounding one at that. Let's just look at a hypothetical that throws this all out of whack. Let's say that the pregnancy is the result of a one night stand. Would the woman then be required to divulge news of her pregnancy to the man who impregnated her? And furthermore, does anyone at all think that this woman ought to be forced to carry the baby to term on the whims and wishes of a one night acquaintance? As an extra bonus, forcing a woman to go to term means that you're forcing her to go through the pain of childbirth. One could say that just based on that fact alone - because it deals with pain - that the woman's decision will always trump the man's desire to have a child.

But perhaps something that really needs to be taken into account here is that there's an assumption that the man's wants supersede the woman's rights to personal autonomy. If the roles were reversed, I really wouldn't want to be told that I didn't have a say in what happened to my body. I get that you presented a situation where the woman would be compensated - but that compensation is for the removal of the woman's rights - something that I find particularly atrocious.

Is it tragic and unfortunate that men don't have a say in the matter? Yes, undoubtedly it is. But life ain't fair, and because of out physiological differences it just so happens that men don't have a say in the matter. We can't infringe on a woman's right to choose what happens to her body no matter how unfair to us it is, because that's how rights work, and that's how freedom works.

The main issue is that pregnancy can have pregnant effects on a woman's body. Even if there are no serious complications, it can sell wreak havoc on a woman's vagina. Plus there is weight gain, stretch marks, boob saggage and general body chemistry screw ups. Not to mention the pain of childbirth.

I feel like a good analogy would be if a guy lost an inch of dick everyone he had a child.

he has a role in creating the child but no role in the development of the fetus. that's entirely on the mother, physically. so, sadly, no.

If he wants a child then he can hire a surrogate or adopt. But no woman who does not want to be pregnant should have to be. If the woman in question decides to be compensated as a surrogate and give the child up, then that's her choice. but it's still her choice and not his.

Just thinking out loud here, I have another can of worms to open: it is strange how a fetus is only considered a person when the woman desires to keep the child. If a man does anything to induce an abortion, that is an automatic second degree murder charge. (See the Scott Peterson trial) Shouldn't the charge be the same as causing a kidney to fail? The woman could still live without a kidney. It appears that personhood of a child is solely based on the decision of the female.

It's still a person in the case of an abortion. A women's right to choose isn't based on the fact that the fetus isn't a person but on the fact that the women is a person. The fetus is a person who does not have the right to endanger the mother's health for it's own well being without the mother's consent.

I guess I shouldn't answer since this is meant for women, and I usually don't. But I am in this EXACT situation.

To cut a long story short, the mom lied about being able to get pregnant and I knocked her up. She wanted an abortion, then to give her up to adoption, and back and forth repeatedly. Even occasionally throwing in a lets raise her together.

Eventually enough was enough and I said I wanted her. I told her I couldn't force her to go through with the birth, but I was no way in hell going to let her give my child up for adoption.

I went to court and fought tooth and nail and got full custody my mom is technically the legal mother, because it's not legal to take the mothers rights away without someone else filling the role in my state. She was pretty pissed, she didn't want me to have my own daughter. Made no sense to me when she didn't want a child at all.

It was a tough fight. Because there really is NO laws in place to protect fathers. There is this list you can go on to alert you whenever the baby's mamma gives birth and tries to put her up for adoption. They call you, you do a test to confirm you are the father, then you can decline the adoption because both parents have to agree.

But even my lawyer told me the loophole in it is that not every state follows the list, so she could of just as easily went a state over where it wasn't used and give her up.

I'm not really sure what I am trying to say here, or prove for that matter. But just remember, just because most guys want to run the other direction, doesn't mean all guys do. I am a 20 year old man raising a child on his own and couldn't be happier. So please, think things through some guys really do want this. I know I've always wanted a family and to settle down.

A lot of people don't understand what pregnancy entails. He did suggest compensating her like a surrogate would be. He seems to be genuinely ignorant of the medical risks and social/economic complications, so I give him the benefit of the doubt.

Why is the financial aspect of this brought up as if it is a constant and solid fact? Not every country makes men do this and money is actually an abstract concept rather than a consistent biological process which doesn't differ wildly depending on the culture/legal environment in which the woman lives. A pregnancy always has the same potential for extreme physical cost for women while the idea of a financial burden for the father is not a constant across time/space. Laws can be changed but you aren't able to change biology. The comparison of these burdens is laughable.

I think the problem is with the abortion debate. There are a multitude of reasonable stances and a multitude of good but very different reasons. From what I can tell, you see it as a reproductive right - a choice about whether someone wants to have a child or not. I personally don't see abortion as a reproductive right and see it more as a "bodily health" right.

Some people see abortion as a woman's choice of whether or not she has a child. To me, this is unfair (in the case of consensual sex). Once conception has begun, a man loses the right to choose whether or not he has a child, and I believe a woman should too EXCEPT: she has a right to not go through pregnancy. I know the results are the same, but the fundamental reasons are different.

An analogy is if your child needs a kidney transplant and you are the only viable donor. You still have a right to refuse. Even if the other parent wanted you to go through with it. Similarly, I believe a woman has a right to refuse use of her uterus for 9 months. Even if life begins at conception, a child's right to life does not trump a mother's right to her own body.

If a woman has a child she doesn't want, she has options (namely adoption), but if a woman is pregnant, there is no way to end the pregnancy without killing the child. She cannot "get rid of it" without aborting. This is unfortunate, but it's simply the way things are with our current medical abilities. Likewise, the father has the option of adoption, but he does not have the option to force the mother to undergo either abortion or pregnancy - those concern the mother's body, so it is her choice.

If we ever have the medical ability for an artificial womb or a fetal transplant or something, then I would support abortion being illegal (generally, supposing the procedure was safe, affordable, etc). Once a woman has an option to refuse pregnancy without harming the child, she should do that. However, in the mean time, the woman has more of a right to bodily autonomy than the child has to life. This does not mean the woman has the right to end the life of a child, so the father should not have that right. This just means that the mother has MORE of a right to her own body than the child does to live. This also means she has more of a right to her own body than the father does to have his child. I wish the father could have his child, the child could have its right to life, and that the mother would not have to go through pregnancy, but nature does not allow this.

That said, this is just ONE of many very reasonable views on abortion. The reason abortion is such an issue is that it is a morally ambiguous situation and it strongly depends on fundamental moral differences that many people haven't even thought about, such as why killing is wrong. Everyone I've talked to about abortion has slightly different reasoning behind their view.

TL;DR: IMO, abortion is the mother's right to refuse pregnancy, not to avoid having a child. The man does not get a say because it is an issue of the mother's body only. Other views of abortion may work with your idea, but mine does not.

No, that would be a horrible horrible system. Forcing someone to endure an experience that has lasting effects (many negative) will never work. Women's bodies are their own and forced surrogacy is not a good thing.

I don't think it should be a legal obligation, but I think it would fair as a voluntary agreement.

I might agree to childbirth in exchange for a surrogate fee and no legal responsibility to the child. If it's that important to the guy, I would expect he'll figure out a way to pay the fee. I don't think you can feasibly give him the right to force me to do so though, that is too far.

I also sometimes wonder about whether or not the man's preference matters. But it's more complicated than just "the woman has the uterus, she gets to decide." The woman's entire body changes in a very noticeable way, both visually and physically. If she doesn't want to go through that, I don't think it's fair for the man to demand her to.

Oh dear, quite the question.. Being a childfree myself, I wouldn't want to have kids, no matter what really. If I were to ever get pregnant, abortion is the way to go for me.

That being said it does take two to create and I honestly think the (future) father should have some sort of say in the matter. However it's the woman who has to carry the kid for nine months, which is hard on the body of the woman as well. She has to take leave from work and you never know, starting off, how tough a pregnancy will be.

For me, personally, it wouldn't be about not wanting the possible father to have his child if he so desires, but a surrogate actually chooses to go through a pregnancy by choice (unlike the woman in the hypothesis who wanted to abort in the first place).

I feel people who decide to have children together make the "sacrifice" (by lack of a better word) to go through pregnancy, while the hypothesis suggests a very different state of mind. Also, I don't know if this is deliberate, but the hypothesis suggests that the parents split up, otherwise the woman will still end up raising the kid (even though legally she's only a surrogate). A pregnancy or an abortion doesn't automaticly mean the end of a relationship. I think that is something to hold in account as well.

I see a lot of replies here that assume "force" is being wielded to make a woman carry an unwanted child.

I read the question as, if the woman doesn't want it, but is willing to carry it to term, then is there a way to construct a contract in which she can opt out of raising it? No "force" involved.

In theory there is no reason why this couldn't be done. In practice it would open up a whole new can of worms. Let's flip this, as is reddit's want to do, and come at the question again.

If a man doesn't want the child, but the woman does, could a man be paid off as a sperm donor? Again, in theory, sure. But as we know this would be abused. You would have men knocking up women to get paid. Does that sound like a viable option? No.

So in short, there is no way to construct a contract that wouldn't end up being abused by unscrupulous people.

Everyone's going to hate me for this, but yes. I think in that circumstance the child should be brought to term. She may have more bodily involvement with the development but he is a parent too and if he wants to raise it I think he has every right to. Men are parents too, and we deny the emotional pain they go through in situations like this out of respect to the mother and I don't think it's right.

I would never have married a man who had so little stock in our future children that he was willing to sit back and let me alone decide whether to keep them. So far as I can control it (so, pretty much my marriage) both parents will have a say.

You guys are missing the point, the OP is asking you this question to make you think about the way the system works. His question is really about why men should have to pay child support for 18 years because a woman has decided that she wants to keep the child. This question was designed to make you consider that the same logic can be applied from: of course not, the man cannot exercise control over the woman's body to make her carry a child to term; to: of course not, the woman cannot exercise control over the man's body to make him give up a lionshare of the fruits of his labor. You see it is the same logic. Men can't force women to have the kid, well then why can women force men to give up a large portion of their lives to pay for something they didn't want.

I am a man, I realize it is pretty skewed to the woman in this instance. I don't find it fair to the men, but I am willing to put my own needs 3rd, behind the woman, then the child. Woman first, as she has the most to carry in the situation.

I'm confused on what answers you expected to get. Do you really think it's okay for a woman to be forced through pregnancy for a man? Do you really think that a woman should not have control over her body? It's her damn body, she doesn't need anyone to tell her what to do or to give her permission to do whatever she wants with her body.

A woman should never be forced to carry a child to term, for it is her body taking the physical and emotional toll. That being said, if there were to be agreements, which she understands, then wishes to carry the fetus to term, then so be it. If there is an incentive to carry the fetus to term (loving home, surrogacy remuneration, not having to pay child support, etc.), and outweighs that of abortion, then it would make both parties happy, and we may see abortion rates decline. Bottom line is, if a woman doesn't wish to go through with the pregnancy, then she shouldn't have to. Childbirth is f%$#ing painful, I've been through three of them. And pregnancy is so hard on the body throughout. Giving a baby away is even more painful, emotionally. I lost one to a custody battle, and having to give up a child like that hurts.

I'm not a mother, I've never been pregnant, I've never impregnated a woman, I'm not even a woman but dare I say the man dropped off the package, and the woman now has to carry it for 9 months. It's the woman's body, it's the woman's life and it's the woman's health and decision to make. I hate to say this but... As a man.. Fuck what the man wants.

I think it should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Perhaps there is a couple who becomes pregnant. The man wants the baby, and the woman doesn't. Is she ok with being pregnant? Then sure, let her do the surrogate stuff and don't let her have custody. If she is not, then she should have the right to terminate.

HOWEVER

There are imbalances in the way that men can be treated here as well. As the laws currently lie, if a man does NOT want the baby and the woman does, then he does not have any opportunity to disown it from the start. Thus, for the rest of his life he will have to pay child support for a baby that he never wanted. So, if the woman should have the right to abort the baby, which I believe she should, so too should the man have the opportunity to opt out of having a place in the baby's life.

Recently, I've been thinking about how unfair it is for women to have the option to opt out of parenthood but men do not. This is a different route than my brain took on making things more even, but Im glad to see someone else was thinking about it too.

I don't like the idea of a woman to be forced into becoming a breeding machine. I could see that turning into some scifi forced slave human farm once someone found a way to profit from it. So instead of forcing a woman to have a man's child as a way to even the playing field, what if a man was given the option to sign out of the deal just as a woman can? I think if a man had the ability to legally give away parental rights during the abortion window, it would be complete game changer.

If a woman knows she will be raising a child alone than she will more carefully consider if she should/could/would be a good SINGLE parent. Most of the women I know who had children young spent their pregnancies lying to themselves about their boyfriends "growing up" once the baby came only to be disappointed and a junkie to the welfare system. (I don't mean that to be condescending)

Also, as a pleasant bonus, I think this would completely end the "pregnancy trap." I used to think it was a myth. It's not. SOME women actually do this and even more men claim it happens. Stop the argument all together but giving both parents a choice.

No. Not his body. Not his body which will have to support and grow the thing for 9 months. Not his choice. It would effectively be in a similar category to legal supported rape.

As has been said if he could carry it or it could be transferred somehow (and it was as or less invasive than the abortive option) then that would be fine. You shouldn't force people to do things to their bodies for the sole benefit or choice of others.